October Term 2009 · Docket 08-1498

Can the government criminalize speech to designated terrorist groups?

Humanitarian groups argue the law bans protected speech. The government claims it prevents material support.

Official caption
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Cole framed the case as an as-applied challenge.

    He asked if the government can criminalize their speech.

    Kagan responded that the law targets material support.

    Roberts questioned the scope of the government's power.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests the First Amendment limits on anti-terrorism statutes.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 23, 2010.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Humanitarian groups want the law struck down as applied to them.

The government wants the law upheld to ban all support.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Cole argues the law criminalizes protected political speech.

Kagan argues the law prevents material support to terrorists.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Stevens asked if all speech at issue is protected.

Roberts asked about speech regarding a group's mere existence.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the boundary between free speech and national security.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON